Patents are far more complicated than just work/don't work. Just because some claim in some patent might actually work, doesn't necessarily mean the whole things works. That claim is still useful and IH was paying for the R&D.
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Craig Haynie <cchayniepub...@gmail.com> wrote: > If Industrial Heat says that the reactor doesn't work, then why did they > apply for a patent with Rossi's technology? > > > https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2015127263&recNum=1&maxRec=&office=&prevFilter=&sortOption=&queryString=&tab=PCT+Biblio > > https://www.google.com/patents/WO2015127263A3?cl=en > > Rossi is now saying that they have just applied for another one: > > "Today I have been informed that IH has again made another patent using my > name as the inventor and my invention, to make a patent assigned to > Industrial Heat, without my authorization." > > If they are patenting Rossi's intellectual property, which he sold to them > in this deal which IH did not finalize, then this would explain why Rossi > is suing, instead of just letting it go. > > Craig > >
